Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 14,893 judgments in total from the Peshawar High Court.

• Nazir vs Muhammad Aslam Khan alias Islam Khan and another1990 MLD 53 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-09-13Read full judgment →
• Nazarur Rehman vs Noroz Khan1990 CLC 1186 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-03-05Read full judgment →
• National Radio and Telecommunication Corporation Employees and Workers' Union, Haripur through its General Secretary vs Labour Appellate Tribunal, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar and 3 others1990 PLC 218 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-12-17
  trade union de-registrationlocus standiwrit petition maintainabilityarmed forces exceptiondelegation of powersindustrial relationsbody corporateaggrieved party
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the National Radio and Telecommunication Corporation Employees and Workers' Union, Haripur, through its General Secretary, challenging the concurrent judgments of the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal, as well as the consequent order of the Registrar Trade Unions, which directed and executed the cancellation of the petitioner union's registration. The core legal questions involved whether a de-registered trade union can invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court in its own name without complying with Order I, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, whether the Registrar can validly authorize a third party to lodge a complaint for de-registration, and whether the National Radio and Telecommunication Corporation falls within the exclusionary scope of section 1(3)(a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 due to its connection with the Armed Forces. The Peshawar High Court held that upon cancellation of its registration, a trade union loses its status as a body corporate and cannot sue or be sued by its registered name, rendering a writ petition filed in that name alone not maintainable without recourse to representative proceedings under Order I, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court further held that the Registrar possesses the power under section 13(b) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 to authorize another person to lodge a complaint for cancellation, and that the National Radio and Telecommunication Corporation, being connected with the Armed Forces, is exempt from the application of the Ordinance under section 1(3)(a). Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a de-registered trade union can invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court in its own name without complying with Order I, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the Registrar Trade Unions have the power under section 13(b) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 to authorize a person other than himself to lodge a complaint for the cancellation of a trade union's registration under section 10?
  • Can employees of the National Radio and Telecommunication Corporation form and register a trade union under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 in view of section 1(3)(a) of the said Ordinance?
  • Does a trade union lose its corporate status and capacity to sue or be sued by its registered name upon the cancellation of its registration under section 10 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Economic Office Machines & Equipment1990 MLD 258 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-05-29Read full judgment →
• Nasir Ali vs The Agricultural Development Authority, N.W.F.P. through Managing Director, A.Da. No,2, Peshawar1990 MLD 96 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-24Read full judgment →
• Nadir Khan vs Zeenat Bibi And 4 Other1990 CLC 293 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-10Read full judgment →
• N.W.F.P. Province Through Collector, Dera Ismail Khan And 2 Others vs Dr.1990 CLC 1293 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-09-27
  civil revisionadjournmentproduction of evidencedecision on meritssummary disposalremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts whereby the respondent's suit for declaration and perpetual injunction was decreed under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 following the petitioners'-defendants' failure to produce evidence. The core legal question is whether a court invoking Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can dispose of a suit summarily without a decision on merits when material is already available on record. The Peshawar High Court held that while the trial court was justified in refusing further adjournments for producing evidence, it erred in decreeing the suit summarily without considering the available evidence on merits. The court ruled that a decision 'forthwith' under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 must be a decision on merits based on the consideration of the material on record rather than a summary dismissal or decree. Consequently, the High Court set aside the lower courts' decrees and remanded the matter to the trial court for a decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a court can decree a suit summarily under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without deciding the case on merits?
  • What is the true import of the expression 'to proceed to decide the suit forthwith' under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can the provisions of Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be invoked when a suit is still at a preliminary stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Mussarat Shah vs The State1990 PLD Peshawar 158 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-04-01
  post-arrest bailProhibition Ordercognizable offencewarrantless searchprivate placenarcotics recoveryillegal investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal misc. petition arises from an application for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner Mussarat Shah, who was implicated under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and section 13 of the Arms Ordinance following a police raid on his baithak where 120 grams of heroin was allegedly recovered. The core legal question was whether an offence under Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 committed at a private place (such as a baithak or house) is cognizable and whether a warrantless search and arrest are lawful without a warrant from a Magistrate. The Peshawar High Court accepted the petition and held that an offence under Article 3 of the Prohibition Order is cognizable only if committed at a public place; if committed at a private place, a search warrant from a competent authority is mandatory, and police cannot enter, search, or arrest without it or without permission under section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court laid down that warrantless house searches for such offences render the proceedings and arrests a nullity, entitling the accused to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is an offence punishable under Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 cognizable if committed at a private place?
  • Can the police conduct a search and make arrests for an offence under Article 3 of the Prohibition Order at a private residence without a search warrant from a Magistrate?
  • What is the effect of an illegal search and investigation conducted without complying with section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in prohibition cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Mumrez Khan and 2 others vs Commissioner, D.I. Khan Division, D.I.Khan1990 PLC (C.S.) 449 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mumrez Khan and 2 Other. vs Commissioner D.I Khan Division and 2K.L.R. 1990 Labour & Service Cases 175 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mulazim Shah vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 431 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-16Read full judgment →
• Mulazim Hussain Shah vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 152 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq and another vs The State1990 PLD Peshawar 118 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-03-21
  post-arrest bailplea of alibifurther inquirycriminal procedureaffidavit evidencemurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arose from the rejection of bail applications by the lower courts for two petitioners, Muhammad Shafiq and Muhammad Iqbal, accused of murder. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail, particularly in light of a plea of alibi supported by affidavits and alleged discrepancies in the prosecution's eyewitness accounts. The High Court held that while the case against Muhammad Shafiq did not warrant bail, the case against Muhammad Iqbal required further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court rejected the State's contention that a plea of alibi cannot be considered at the bail stage, establishing that there is no inflexible rule against it; rather, such pleas must be evaluated based on the specific facts of each case. Finding that the affidavits of disinterested co-villagers provided substantial support for Muhammad Iqbal's alibi, the Court concluded that his guilt necessitated further inquiry and granted him bail, while dismissing the petition for the co-accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plea of alibi be considered at the bail stage of criminal proceedings?
  • Is there a prescribed time limit for filing a bail application in the High Court after rejection by the Sessions Court?
  • Does the existence of a plea of alibi supported by affidavits constitute reasonable grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saif Ul Mulk Nasir vs North West Frontier Province1990 CLC 560 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-11-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs N.-W.F.P, through Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development Department, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar and 5 others1990 CLC 1188 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-01-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz And 6 Others vs Muhammad Nawaz And Another1990 CLC 1880 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naseem Khan And Another vs Government of N. W.F.P.1990 CLC 1693 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-04-25
  writ jurisdictionalternative remedyco-operative societieslachesrevisional jurisdictionsupersession of boardexhaustion of remedies
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition, filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged an order passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, N.W.F.P., which superseded the Board of Directors of the Frontier Provincial Co-operative Bank and appointed an Administrator. The petitioners contended that the order was mala fide, lacked proper notice, and was issued without legal authority. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction when an alternative, adequate remedy exists under the governing statute. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable because Section 64-A of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, provides a comprehensive revisional remedy to the Provincial Government, which the petitioners failed to exhaust. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petition suffered from laches, having been filed significantly after the impugned order. The key principle laid down is that where a statute creates a right and provides a specific forum and procedure for its enforcement, the High Court will generally decline to exercise writ jurisdiction until such alternative, efficacious remedies have been exhausted.

  Questions settled

  • Is a writ petition maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 when an alternative remedy is available under Section 64-A of the Co-operative Societies Act 1925?
  • Does the term 'proceedings' in the context of revisional jurisdiction under Section 64-A of the Co-operative Societies Act 1925 encompass the administrative actions of the Registrar?
  • Can the High Court decline to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction if a petitioner fails to exhaust the statutory remedy provided by the relevant special law?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Miskeen and another vs The State and another1990 PLD Peshawar 79 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-12-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irshad and others vs Assistant Commissioner, Swat and others1990 PLD Peshawar 51 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-02-24
  constitutional petitionequal protection of lawJirga systemreasonable classificationProvincially Administered Tribal Areasfundamental rightsjudicial administrationdiscriminatory legislation
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenged the validity of the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas Criminal Laws (Special Provisions) Regulation 1975 and the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas Civil Laws (Special Provisions) Regulation 1975. The petitioners contended that these Regulations, which established special forums (Jirgas) and procedures for criminal and civil adjudication in Swat and Dir, were discriminatory and violative of Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the law. The Court examined whether the classification created by these Regulations, which subjected citizens in these areas to a different judicial system than the rest of the province, was reasonable. The Court held that the Regulations were arbitrary, lacked a rational basis, and failed to establish any intelligible differentia or nexus with a legitimate objective. Consequently, the Court declared both Regulations violative of Article 25 of the Constitution. The proceedings under these Regulations were quashed, and the Court directed that the matters be transferred to ordinary courts of competent jurisdiction for trial and adjudication in accordance with the established laws of the land.

  Questions settled

  • Do the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas Criminal Laws (Special Provisions) Regulation 1975 and the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas Civil Laws (Special Provisions) Regulation 1975 violate the fundamental right to equality before the law under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a legislative classification be sustained if it lacks an intelligible differentia and a rational nexus to the objective of the law?
  • Are the procedural laws and forums established by the 1975 Regulations for Swat and Dir discriminatory when compared to the judicial system applicable in the rest of the North-West Frontier Province?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat vs Wazirzada and others1990 PLD Peshawar 45 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-12-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farid Khan and 4 others vs Collector No.v, Tarbela Dam1990 PLD Peshawar 97 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-12-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs The State1990 PLD Peshawar 76 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-01-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub Khan vs Muhammad Zaman and another1990 PLD Peshawar 181 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-06-30
  pre-emptiontalb-i-muwathibatrevisional jurisdictionimmediate demandburden of proofconcurrent findingsN.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arises from the dismissal of a pre-emption suit by the lower courts due to the plaintiff's failure to prove the 'talb-i-muwathibat' (immediate demand) as required by the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987. The core legal question concerns the interpretation of 'immediate' demand and the evidentiary standard required to establish it. The Court held that while the initial burden to prove 'talb-i-muwathibat' lies on the pre-emptor, the term 'immediate' must be construed liberally, considering individual circumstances and human limitations, rather than applying a rigid, uniform yardstick. The Court established that 'talb-i-muwathibat' is a private act, unlike 'talb-i-ishhad', and no specific form or manner of declaration is mandated by law; it suffices if the evidence raises a legitimate presumption that the pre-emptor acted with reasonable immediacy. However, because the determination of whether this demand was made is a question of fact, and the lower courts reached concurrent findings based on the evidence, the High Court declined to interfere in its revisional jurisdiction, as no jurisdictional error was demonstrated.

  Questions settled

  • Does the term 'immediate' in the context of 'talb-i-muwathibat' require a rigid, uniform application, or should it be interpreted liberally based on the circumstances of each case?
  • Is 'talb-i-muwathibat' a private act that does not require a specific form or manner of declaration to be valid?
  • Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the performance of 'talb-i-muwathibat' in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Khan vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 169 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-09-04
  post-arrest bailmedical groundssick or infirmprohibitory clauseCervical Spondylosismurder trialproviso interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition was brought before the Peshawar High Court seeking post-arrest bail on medical grounds in a murder case registered under Sections 302, 452, 449, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner had been arrested for allegedly shooting and killing a Deputy Inspector-General of Police and injuring another person who later died. The core legal questions pertained to the interpretation of the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding bail for a 'sick or infirm' accused, specifically whether the illness must be life-threatening and whether the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) overrides the proviso. The High Court held that 'sick' or 'infirm' in the first proviso does not strictly require the ailment to be dangerous to life; rather, where serious illness is established and adequate specialized treatment cannot be provided in jail, discretion should be exercised in favor of bail. Furthermore, the proviso operates as an exception modifying the prohibitory clause. Bail was accordingly granted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the term 'sick or infirm' under the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 require that the illness must be dangerous to life?
  • Can bail on medical grounds be granted under the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to an accused whose case falls within the prohibitory clause?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail where specialized and necessary medical treatment for a serious condition is unavailable in jail facilities?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahmed Khan vs Commissioner, D.I. Khan and 4 others1990 P Cr. L J 167 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-06-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal and 2 others vs Rehmatullah and anothers1990 PLD Peshawar 131 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-04-18Read full judgment →
• Mubarik Shah vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1796 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-27
  special court jurisdictionrepeal of ordinancearticle 264 constitutionscheduled offencelegal proceedingslapsed ordinancecriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This Full Bench was constituted to determine whether the Special Court, established under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, retained jurisdiction to try an accused for an offence under the Arms Ordinance, 1965, after the amending Ordinances (XVI and XVII of 1988) had lapsed due to not being laid before the National Assembly within the prescribed period. The appellant argued that the Special Court lost jurisdiction upon the repeal of the amending Ordinance. The Court held, by a majority, that under Article 264 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, the repeal of a law does not affect any investigation, legal proceeding, or remedy in respect of any right, privilege, obligation, or liability acquired or incurred under the repealed law. The Court ruled that the trial of the appellant was a continuation of the legal proceedings initiated under the law in force at the time of the offence. Consequently, the Special Court validly retained jurisdiction, and the trial was not vitiated by the subsequent lapse of the amending Ordinances.

  Questions settled

  • Does the lapse of an amending Ordinance by operation of Article 89 of the Constitution divest a Special Court of jurisdiction over proceedings initiated under the repealed law?
  • Does Article 264 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 save the jurisdiction of a Special Court to continue a trial for an offence committed while the amending Ordinance was in force?
  • Is the forum provided for the trial of an offence considered an integral part of the 'legal proceedings' saved under Article 264 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 upon the repeal of a statute?
  Read full judgment →
• Mu14ammad Madassar Shah vs Mubarik Shah And Another1990 CLC 1679 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-04-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Urman Jee vs District Judge, Kohat and 3 others1990 PLD Peshawar 100 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-01-16
  specific performancecross-examinationsummoning of partiesrevisional jurisdictionconstitutional petitionadverse inferenceexamination-in-chief
  Summary & questions settled

  Mst. Urman Jee filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement against Arshad Javed, where the defendant admitted the claim in his written statement. Subsequently, Kundal Khan was impleaded as a party due to a pending pre-emption suit. Kundal Khan later filed an application to summon Arshad Javed solely for cross-examination without examining him as a witness. The trial court dismissed the application, but the District Judge accepted a revision petition and set aside the trial court's order. In the constitutional petition before the Peshawar High Court, the core legal question was whether a party to a suit can be summoned exclusively for cross-examination without entering the witness-box, and whether the revisional court could interfere with the trial court's exercise of discretion. The High Court held that no provision in law compels a party to appear as their own witness or allows a party to be cross-examined without an examination-in-chief, and that revisional courts cannot interfere with a proper exercise of discretion by a trial court without manifest illegality or jurisdictional error. The constitutional petition was accepted and the District Judge's order was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a party to a suit can be summoned exclusively for cross-examination without being examined-in-chief?
  • Can a court compel a party to litigation to appear as a witness against their will?
  • In what circumstances can a revisional court interfere with a discretionary order passed by a trial court?
  • Does a party have the right to cross-examine an opposing party who refuses to enter the witness-box?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sameen vs Afghanullah and 2 others1990 PLD Peshawar 110 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-03-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Safia Begum vs Allah Nawaz1990 CLC 1852 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-04-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Raisa Bibi vs The Subdivisional Officer (E), WAPDA, Operation1990 PLD Peshawar 105 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-03-07
  temporary injunctionelectricity disconnectionirreparable lossarrears of electricity chargesWAPDArevision petitionstatutory compliance
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arose from a suit challenging an electricity disconnection notice issued by WAPDA. The petitioner sought an injunction to restrain disconnection, which the trial court granted conditionally upon the deposit of outstanding arrears. The appellate court maintained this condition. The core legal question was whether the court could grant a temporary injunction against electricity disconnection without requiring the deposit of disputed arrears, and whether potential pecuniary loss satisfies the "irreparable loss" requirement for an injunction. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the lower courts correctly applied the law. The Court affirmed that pecuniary loss does not constitute "irreparable loss" for the purpose of granting temporary injunctions. Furthermore, the Court held that under Section 54-C of the Electricity Act, 1910, any order prohibiting the licensee from discontinuing energy supply is statutorily contingent upon the consumer depositing the assessed amount. Consequently, the Court upheld the requirement for the petitioner to deposit the arrears, albeit directing that the funds be deposited in the trial court via National Savings Certificates.

  Questions settled

  • Does potential pecuniary loss constitute irreparable loss for the purpose of granting a temporary injunction?
  • Is an injunction prohibiting the disconnection of electricity supply conditional upon the deposit of the assessed arrears under Section 54-C of the Electricity Act, 1910?
  • Can a court order the deposit of disputed electricity arrears as a condition for maintaining a status quo order?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mumtaz Begum vs Abdul Wahid1990 CLC 1305 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-07
  civil revisionpre-emption decreedeposit of pre-emption moneycomputation of timeclosed holiday
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was filed by the petitioner Mst. Mumtaz Begum to challenge the concurrent judgments and decrees of the two courts below, which had dismissed her suit seeking a declaration that a previous pre-emption decree obtained by the respondent Abdul Wahid had become ineffective. The core legal question was whether the pre-emption money was deposited within the stipulated period of one month when the final day of the limitation period fell on a public holiday (Friday) and the deposit was made on the next working day. The Peshawar High Court held that pursuant to Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, where the prescribed period for doing an act expires on a holiday, the act is considered validly done if performed on the next day the court or office re-opens. Consequently, the deposit was made within time. The petition was dismissed with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a pre-emption suit stands dismissed if the pre-emption money is not deposited within the time specified by the court?
  • Does Section 10 of the General Clauses Act apply when the period for depositing pre-emption money expires on a public holiday?
  • Can a pre-emption decree be declared ineffective on the ground of delayed deposit of pre-emption money when the deposit is made on the next working day following a holiday?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Maroof Jan And 2 Others vs Yaqoob And 4, Other1990 CLC 19 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-01
  res judicatawithdrawal of suitpermission to file fresh suitremand of casecivil revisiondeclaration suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the petitioners regarding ownership of land and challenging certain mutations. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, deciding the issue of res judicata against the defendants. However, on appeal, the Additional District Judge remanded the case back to the trial court to decide the issue afresh. The core legal question before the High Court was whether a suit withdrawn with permission to file a fresh suit is barred by res judicata or affected by the provisions governing withdrawal of suits. The Peshawar High Court held that when a suit is withdrawn with permission to bring a fresh suit, the previous suit is regarded as never brought and neither a fresh suit on the same subject nor the enforcement of rights is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The court laid down the principle that the appellate court erred in remanding the matter, as a suit withdrawn with the court's leave leaves the plaintiff free to institute a fresh action without being obstructed by res judicata. Consequently, the revision petition was allowed, the appellate remand order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the lower appellate court for a decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit withdrawn with the permission of the court to file a fresh suit is barred by the principle of res judicata?
  • What is the legal effect of withdrawing a suit with permission of the court under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can an appellate court remand a case to the trial court for re-deciding an issue when the legal position regarding the withdrawal of a suit is clear?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khurshid Begum vs Mir Muhammad And 8 Other1990 CLC 1614 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-03-24
  compromisecivil revisiondeclaration suitequity of redemptionremand of casejurisdiction failure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the concurrent dismissal of her suit for declaration regarding the equity of redemption of a property. She claimed the property was sold to her orally by defendant No.1, who later executed a sale-deed in favour of defendant No.2. During trial, an application for recording a compromise between the parties was submitted. The trial court examined witnesses regarding the compromise but ultimately dismissed the suit on merits without recording any finding on the genuineness of the compromise, a decision affirmed in appeal. The Peshawar High Court held that under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, it is a mandatory requirement for the court to record a finding either accepting or refusing a compromise when proved to its satisfaction, especially since an order under this provision is appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1 Clause (m). The High Court set aside the judgments of both courts below and remanded the matter to the trial court to first decide the validity of the compromise, and if rejected, to afford the parties an opportunity to lead evidence on the merits.

  Questions settled

  • Is a trial court legally bound to record a finding on a compromise agreement presented by the parties under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Whether an order refusing or recording a compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3 is appealable under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • What is the course of action for an appellate or revisional court when the trial court fails to adjudicate upon a lawful compromise reached between the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kausar Bibi vs Muhammad Mushtaq And 6 Other1990 CLC 1205 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-11-22
  partition suitimpleadment of partiesnecessary partycivil revisioncase decidedjoinder of partiesmultiplicity of litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from a dispute regarding the impleadment of respondents 3 to 7 in a partition suit. The petitioner challenged the trial court's order allowing these respondents to be joined as parties, arguing that the suit did not involve inter se controversies among heirs and that the application was mala fide. The Peshawar High Court rejected these contentions, affirming that in a partition suit, all heirs and persons claiming an interest in the joint property are necessary and proper parties. The Court held that the trial court is duty-bound under Order XX Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to judicially ascertain all interested persons to ensure a proper decree. Furthermore, the Court ruled that an order impleading a party is not appealable, and a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is incompetent unless the order constitutes a 'case decided' that prejudices legal rights. Finding that the impleadment advanced justice and prevented multiplicity of litigation, the Court dismissed the petition in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Are all heirs and persons claiming an interest in joint property necessary parties in a partition suit?
  • Is an order directing the impleadment of a party in a pending suit appealable?
  • Does an order impleading a party in a pending suit constitute a 'case decided' for the purposes of revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a trial court order the impleadment of parties in a partition suit even without a formal application?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hayat Bibi alias Badri Jamala vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 416 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Gul Part and others vs Said Ul Arifeen alias Khan Mull1990 PLD Peshawar 36 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bibi Shahida vs Mst. Bibi Nawab Jana And 4 Other1990 CLC 1905 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-03-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bibi Musarrat vs Sarfaraz1990 CLC 1908 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-23
  past maintenanceMuslim Family Lawsmaintenance of wifeconstitutional petitiondesertionFamily Courts Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by Mst. Bibi Musarrat against the judgment of the District Judge, Mansehra, which had disallowed her claim for past maintenance. The core legal question was whether a Muslim wife is entitled to claim past maintenance from her husband in the absence of a prior agreement or court decree when she has been neglected or forced into involuntary desertion. The Peshawar High Court held that a neglected wife is indeed entitled to past maintenance, and arrears of maintenance constitute a debt upon the husband, provided she did not desert the conjugal abode or disobey without a valid cause. The absence of a prior agreement or decree does not bar her from recovering past maintenance. The Court set aside the appellate judgment and restored the wife's right to maintenance for the period of forced desertion up to the period of idat, following established precedents of the superior courts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Muslim wife is entitled to a decree for past maintenance in the absence of a specific prior agreement or court decree?
  • Does the absence of a prior agreement or decree bar a neglected wife from claiming past maintenance from her husband?
  • Whether past maintenance is treated as a debt upon the husband under Islamic law when the wife is neglected without her fault?
  • What is the effect of involuntary desertion on a wife's entitlement to maintenance allowance?
  Read full judgment →
• MRs, Shaila Joseph vs Chairman, Hazara Hill Tract Improvement Trust, Abbottabad and 3 others1990 MLD 807 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-12-10Read full judgment →
• Mohabat Khan and 77 others vs Road Transport Board and 4 others1990 PLC 794 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-06-20Read full judgment →
• Mirza Ali vs Mst. Shahida Parveen And Other1990 CLC 1101 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-15Read full judgment →
• Mirbaz Khan and 2 Other vs Atlas Khan and OtherK.L.R. 1990 Revenue Cases 104 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-05-16Read full judgment →
• Mirbaz Khan alias Bazi and 2 others vs Atlas Khan and 33 others1990 PLD Peshawar 108 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-05-16Read full judgment →
• Miraj Ahmiad vs Malik Sadam Khan And 8 Other1990 CLC 1674 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-04-10Read full judgment →
• Mir Rehman vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 131 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-12Read full judgment →
• Mir Pio Jan And Others vs District Judge, Bannu And Other1990 CLC 1165 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-11-26Read full judgment →
• Mir Basi Iai vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1225 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-12-05Read full judgment →
• Mir Ajab Gul and others vs Noor Nawaz Khan and others1990 MLD 2111 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-06-23Read full judgment →
• Mir Afzal Khan vs Ejaz Akbar, Principal, Pakistan International Public1990 MLD 2207 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-06-06Read full judgment →
• Mir Afzal And 2 Others vs Muhammad Raza Khan And 13 Other1990 CLC 1617 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-03-26
  regular first appealpossessionrevenue recordownership titlesale deedtenancymutation
  Summary & questions settled

  This Regular First Appeal challenges the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Abbottabad, whereby a suit for possession of urban land was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents. The core legal question revolved around whether the plaintiffs established valid title to the suit property through a chain of registered sale deeds tracing back to the original owner, notwithstanding erroneous entries in the revenue record (ownership column) favouring the defendants' predecessor. The Peshawar High Court held that the plaintiffs successfully proved their title and continuous possession through predecessors and tenants, while the rival entries in the name of the defendants' predecessor originated from a settlement mistake and did not confer valid ownership. The Court laid down that erroneous entries in the revenue record during settlement operations do not override a valid chain of registered title deeds, and that tenants who deny the title of their landlords and collude to acquire flawed entries are liable to eviction and dispossession.

  Questions settled

  • Does an erroneous entry in the ownership column of the revenue record during settlement operations override a valid chain of registered sale deeds?
  • Whether mere omission to frame an issue vitiates trial proceedings if parties were fully aware of the contest and led evidence thereon?
  • Can a tenant who denies the title of the landlord and acquires a transfer from a third party with a flawed revenue entry claim lawful possession against the true owner?
  Read full judgment →
• Mir Abbas Khan vs Amanullah Kiian And Other1990 CLC 1848 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-20Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ma.Latif Janjua vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan, through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, G.H.O. Rawalpindi and 2 others1990 PLD Peshawar 137 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-03-31Read full judgment →
• Messrs Haroonurrashid Textile Mills Limited vs Presiding Officer and others1990 PLD Peshawar 122 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-03-06Read full judgment →
• Messrs China Paint Industries Limited And Others vs Industrial1990 CLC 1865 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-06-18Read full judgment →
• Maroof and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 136 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-07-04Read full judgment →
• Malik Tilla Muhammad And Others, vs Sadiq Hussain And Other1990 CLC 1698 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-19Read full judgment →
• Malik Alamgir And 3 Others vs Salam Gul And 10 Other1990 CLC 1915 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-03-17
  pre-emption suitrejection of plaintextension of timepredecessor-in-officereview jurisdictionlimitationdeposit of pre-emption money
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arises from a pre-emption suit where the trial court dismissed the suit, later modified to rejection of the plaint, due to the plaintiffs' failure to comply with initial deposit orders. The core legal question was whether the trial court could effectively set aside a predecessor judge's order that had granted the plaintiffs extensions of time for depositing pre-emption money, particularly when the defendants had not appeared at the time of the extension. The High Court held that the trial court erred in ignoring the predecessor's order. The Court ruled that an order passed by a predecessor-in-office remains valid and binding until set aside through proper appellate or review proceedings. Furthermore, the trial court lacked the jurisdiction to review its predecessor’s order under Order 47 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and the defendants' application was time-barred. The Court established that notice to defendants for extending time for pre-emption money deposits is not mandatory if the limitation period for filing a fresh suit has not expired.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court, on a miscellaneous application, set aside an order extending time for deposit of pre-emption money passed by its predecessor-in-office?
  • Is notice to the defendant mandatory for an order extending the time for the deposit of pre-emption money if the limitation period for filing a fresh suit has not expired?
  • Does a trial court have the jurisdiction to review an order passed by its predecessor-in-office under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• M. Altaf Hussain and 5 others vs Peshawar Motors Limited1990 MLD 337 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-09-13Read full judgment →
• Laiq Shah vs The State1990 MLD 581 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-30Read full judgment →
• Khushrangzeb vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 2026 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-29Read full judgment →
• Khushal Khan vs The State1990 MLD 46 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-18Read full judgment →
• Khurshid Ahmad vs Attiya Nigar And 2Other1990 CLC 297 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-10
  dissolution of marriagecruelty of conductrecovery of dowermaintenance allowanceKhularestitution of conjugal rightsonus probandiconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition before the Peshawar High Court challenged the concurrent findings and decrees of the Judge, Family Court, and the Additional District Judge, D.I. Khan. The lower courts had decreed the suit filed by respondent No. 1 for dissolution of marriage, recovery of dower amount, and maintenance allowance. The petitioner contested the decrees, contending lack of evidence regarding cruelty, claiming prior payment of dower, asserting that separate living disentitled the wife to maintenance, and arguing the dissolution was effectively on the ground of Khula requiring return of benefits. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that unsubstantiated allegations of misappropriation and immorality leveled against the wife constituted cruelty of conduct under Section 2(viii) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act 1939. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proving dower payment, and the wife was justified in living separately for sufficient reasons, preserving her right to maintenance. The concurrent findings showed no jurisdictional defect or misreading of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether false or unproven allegations of misappropriation and immorality against a wife amount to cruelty of conduct under Section 2(viii) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act 1939?
  • Upon whom does the burden of proof lie when a husband pleads that the stipulated dower amount has already been paid?
  • Does a wife forfeit her right to maintenance allowance if she lives separately from her husband for sufficient reasons?
  • Can a dissolution of marriage granted under Section 2 of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act 1939 be treated as a decree of Khula requiring the return of benefits?
  Read full judgment →
• Khawaja (International) Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., Swabi vs Assistant1990 PLD Peshawar 169 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-06-11
  tax exemptionmanufacturing processcustoms dutysales taxstatutory interpretationGadoon Amazai Industrial Estateconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition concerns the interpretation of a Federal Government Notification granting customs and sales tax exemptions for raw materials imported for the 'exclusive manufacture of goods' within the Gadoon Amazai Industrial Estate. The petitioner, an industrialist, imported 'Acrylic Tow' to manufacture 'Acrylic Tops' but was denied the exemption by the respondents, who argued that the conversion process did not constitute 'exclusive manufacture' under the Notification. The core legal question was whether the transformation of Acrylic Tow into Acrylic Tops qualifies as a manufacturing process entitled to the tax exemption. The Peshawar High Court held that the process of converting raw material into a distinct, marketable product through skilled labor and machinery constitutes 'manufacture.' The Court rejected the respondents' narrow interpretation of 'exclusive,' clarifying that it refers to the use of raw materials specifically for manufacturing within the designated estate, rather than restricting the exemption to only 'ultimate' goods. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to grant the petitioner the tax exemptions provided by the Notification.

  Questions settled

  • Does the conversion of raw material into a distinct, marketable product through skilled labor and machinery constitute 'manufacture'?
  • Does the term 'exclusive manufacture' in a tax exemption notification limit the benefit to only the production of 'ultimate' goods?
  • Can the definition of 'manufacture' from the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944 be used to interpret the scope of manufacturing processes in tax exemption notifications?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalilur Rehman vs The Land Acquisition Collector, Abbottabad and anothers1990 PLD Peshawar 88 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-12-05Read full judgment →
• Khair Afzal vs The State1990 PLD Peshawar 155 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-04-25Read full judgment →
• Karim Bakhsh vs Gul Rehman1990 CLC 1200 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-16
  minorityalienation of propertyGuardians and Wards Actrevisional jurisdictionamendment of pleadingsvoid contractsecundum allegata et probatapartition suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged concurrent judgments decreeing a suit for possession by partition of a house. The defendant-petitioner claimed ownership based on unregistered sale-deeds executed by the plaintiff-respondent’s father while the respondent was a minor. The core legal questions concerned the validity of a father’s alienation of a minor's property without judicial permission and the permissibility of amending pleadings at the revisional stage to introduce new defenses like 'Benami' and 'bona fide purchaser'. The Court held that under Section 11 of the Contract Act, 1872, a minor is incompetent to contract, and a father cannot alienate a minor's immovable property without prior permission under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. Consequently, the purported sale was void. Furthermore, the Court dismissed the application to amend the written statement, ruling that introducing new pleas at the revisional stage would violate the principle of 'secundum allegata et probata' and unfairly alter the suit's complexion. The revision petition was dismissed, affirming that the defendant could not rely on void transactions to defeat the plaintiff's title.

  Questions settled

  • Is a contract entered into by a minor void under the Contract Act, 1872?
  • Can a father alienate a minor's immovable property without prior permission from the Guardian Court?
  • Can a party amend their written statement to introduce new pleas such as 'Benami' at the revisional stage?
  • Does the principle of 'secundum allegata et probata' prevent a court from considering evidence on facts not pleaded in the written statement?
  Read full judgment →
• Karam Elahi through Legal Heirs vs Feroz Mining Limited, Abbottabad1990 PLD Peshawar 174 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-06-30Read full judgment →
• Kameen Khan and 15 others vs Ghazi Marjan and 9 others1990 MLD 1865 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-04-11
  declaration of titlerevenue recordadverse possessionmortgage redemptionjoint ownershipguardian-ad-litemcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from a suit for declaration filed by respondents against petitioners, challenging revenue record entries concerning the ownership of suit land. The respondents claimed ownership of half the land, arguing that a 1954 mutation only transferred half, while the revenue record erroneously reflected the petitioners as owners of the entire area. The petitioners contested the claim, asserting full ownership through purchase and, alternatively, adverse possession. The trial court and the appellate court both decreed in favor of the respondents, finding the revenue entries incorrect. The High Court upheld these concurrent findings, ruling that the mutation clearly evidenced a sale of only half the land. Regarding adverse possession, the Court held that the land was under mortgage during the relevant period, and the parties were joint owners (Hissadars), precluding any claim of adverse possession. Furthermore, the Court rejected arguments regarding the suit's maintainability under the Specific Relief Act and the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, noting that the suit was for declaration of title, not mere record correction, and that the minor defendant's interests were sufficiently protected by counsel.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party claim adverse possession against a co-owner while the property is under mortgage?
  • Is a suit for declaration of title maintainable under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 if the plaintiff does not seek consequential relief of possession?
  • Does the failure to appoint a guardian-ad-litem for a minor defendant automatically vitiate the proceedings if the minor's interests were otherwise represented and safeguarded?
  • Do Civil Courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate a suit for declaration of title despite the existence of conflicting revenue record entries?
  Read full judgment →
• Kadirullah vs Rahim Gul alias Abdur Rahim and another1990 P Cr. L J 1791 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-28Read full judgment →
• Jhanda vs The State1990 PLD Peshawar 166 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-04-21Read full judgment →
• Jehandar and anothers vs Bazir Khan and others1990 MLD 83 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-28Read full judgment →
• Javed Zaman vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1672 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-14Read full judgment →
• Jamil Tahira vs Vice Chancellor, Gomal University, Dera Ismal Khan1990 CLC 1284 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-12-05Read full judgment →
• Jamil Haidry vs The State1990 MLD 44 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-09-18Read full judgment →
• Jahandad and 6 others vs President's Special Military Court No.88, Sector 1 Zone 'B' c_o Home Secretary Government of N,W.F.P. Peshawar and 3 others1990 PLD Peshawar 63 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-01-21Read full judgment →
• Itbar Khan vs The State1990 MLD 1043 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-01-15Read full judgment →
• Ishfaq Ahmad and another vs The State1990 PLD Peshawar 156 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-04-04
  post-arrest bailstatutory delayretrialcontinuation of trialmurder trialcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal matter arises from a bail application filed by under-trial prisoners charged under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, seeking post-arrest bail on the statutory ground of delayed trial under the third proviso to subsection (1) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the statutory period of detention for the purpose of bail after an order of remand for retrial should be calculated from the original date of incarceration or from the date of receipt of the file by the trial court following the remand order. The Peshawar High Court held that a retrial is a continuation of the original trial rather than a fresh proceeding, and therefore the period of detention must be counted from the initial dates of arrest. Consequently, the court ruled that exceeding the statutory period entitles the accused to bail, provided the delay is not attributable to the petitioners. The petition was accepted and bail was granted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a retrial is considered a second trial or a continuation of the same trial for the purpose of calculating the statutory period for bail?
  • From which date should the period of detention be calculated under the third proviso to subsection (1) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when a case has been remanded for retrial?
  • Does an accused person become legally entitled to bail under the statutory delay provisions if they have completed more than five years in jail and the delay is not caused by their own conduct?
  Read full judgment →
• Hidayatullah And 2 Others vs Haqnawaz And Another1990 CLC 1095 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-06-28
  pre-emptionamendment of written statementadditional evidencedoctrine of sinkerrevisional jurisdictionco-sharer
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from a pre-emption suit decreed in favor of the respondents on the grounds of co-sharership and contiguity. During the pendency of the revision petition, the petitioners sought to amend their written statement to introduce the plea of 'sinker' and requested permission to adduce additional evidence by summoning a revenue official. The core legal questions were whether a party can amend their written statement to introduce a new plea at the revisional stage, and whether additional evidence can be allowed to patch up omissions. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the application and the revision petition, holding that amendments under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 will be refused if delayed excessively or if they introduce a new plea that improves the original case to the prejudice of the opposite party. Furthermore, the Court ruled that Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is not intended to allow negligent litigants to fill gaps or patch up weak portions of their case.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party be permitted to amend their written statement to introduce a new plea for the first time at the revisional stage?
  • Under what circumstances can an appellate or revisional court allow the production of additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the failure to raise a specific defense at the trial stage preclude a party from raising it during subsequent appellate or revisional proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Hakim Khan vs Nazeer Ahmad Lughmani and others1990 MLD 89 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-11-04
  mutationland revenueburden of proofpresumption of truthjamabandititlemandatory provisions
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of a suit for declaration and alternate possession regarding land in Tehsil Mansehra, wherein the plaintiff challenged a mutation of sale as fraudulent, void, and inoperative against his rights. The trial court and the district judge concurrently decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, holding the mutation invalid and not attested in accordance with the law. The core legal questions addressed by the Peshawar High Court were whether the provisions of section 42 of the Land Revenue Act regarding mutation proceedings are mandatory or directory, and whether a mutation creates title or carries a rebuttable presumption of truth when incorporated into the jamabandi. The High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the provisions of section 42 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967 are mandatory in nature, that mutations do not lay the foundation of title, and that the presumption of truth attached to a jamabandi is rebuttable and stands displaced when the underlying mutation is proved to be unlawful or non-compliant with mandatory statutory procedures.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of section 42 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967 regarding mutation proceedings are mandatory or directory in nature?
  • Does a mutation in the revenue record independently create or lay the foundation of a title to property?
  • Can the presumption of truth attached to an entry in the jamabandi be rebutted when the underlying mutation is proved to be in contravention of mandatory statutory provisions?
  • Where a party makes a negative assertion on oath denying participation in mutation proceedings, does the burden of proof shift to the opposite party to prove such participation?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Walayat Khan vs Abdul Usman1990 CLC 37 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-25
  malicious prosecutiondamagesreasonable and probable causecriminal proceedings quashmentcivil disputerevision petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of a suit for damages for malicious prosecution instituted by the plaintiff-respondent against the defendant-petitioner. The trial court dismissed the suit, but on appeal, the District Judge decreed it in favour of the respondent, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court. The core legal question was whether the respondent successfully established that his prior criminal prosecution by the petitioner was malicious and instituted without reasonable or probable cause. The Peshawar High Court held that initiating criminal proceedings for a matter that is inherently civil in nature, without reasonable or probable cause and while pursuing a parallel civil remedy, constitutes malicious prosecution. The court laid down the principle that if a person initiates criminal proceedings in a matter which a person of ordinary prudence knows does not constitute a criminal offence and falls exclusively within civil jurisdiction, such action amounts to prosecution without reasonable and probable cause, furnishing a valid cause of action for a suit for damages.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential requirements a plaintiff must establish to succeed in an action for malicious prosecution?
  • Does the initiation of criminal proceedings for a matter that is essentially civil in nature amount to prosecution without reasonable and probable cause?
  • Whether the quashment of criminal proceedings by the High Court under inherent powers establishes that the prosecution was malicious?
  • Can a suit for damages for malicious prosecution succeed if the complainant fails to withdraw the criminal complaint despite pursuing a parallel civil remedy?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Nabiullah and anothers vs Messrs Habib Bank Ltd. through President1990 PLD Peshawar 17 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-01-02
  banking companiesbanking tribunalspecial courtjurisdictionmark-upborrower suitrecovery of loans
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal against the judgment of the Special Judge (Banking Companies), who had ordered the return of a plaint filed by the appellants for compensation against a bank, holding that since the loan was on a mark-up basis, jurisdiction vested in the Banking Tribunal. The core legal question was whether claims by a borrower regarding a loan involving mark-up fall under the jurisdiction of the Special Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 or the Banking Tribunal under the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984. The Peshawar High Court held that the Special Court under the Banking Companies Ordinance has jurisdiction to entertain claims filed by a borrower against a banking company regardless of whether the loan includes mark-up, whereas the Banking Tribunal can only entertain claims filed by a banking company and not by a borrower. The court laid down that the criterion for determining the forum for a borrower's suit is the right of a borrower to sue under the Banking Companies Ordinance, and mark-up alone does not oust the Special Court's jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit filed by a borrower against a banking company in respect of a loan on a mark-up basis is triable by a Special Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 or a Banking Tribunal under the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984?
  • Does the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 confer any right upon a borrower to file a claim before a Banking Tribunal?
  • Is the presence of mark-up in a loan transaction the sole criterion for determining the jurisdictional forum between a Special Court and a Banking Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Inam Khan And 10 Others vs Sooba1990 CLC 1193 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-22Read full judgment →
• Haji Arsala Khan vs Dr. Abdus Sattar Khan1990 MLD 2404 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-06-27Read full judgment →
• Habibullah Khan and others vs Saadat Khan and others1990 MLD 355 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-02
  customary lawlimited estatetermination of life estateMuslim Personal Law Shariat Application Actinheritanceadverse possessionhearsay evidencerelationship by blood
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of three connected Regular First Appeals arising from a civil court decree concerning the inheritance of properties left by Fazalur Rehman, who died in 1922 under customary law. The core legal questions involved the determination of the legal status of female limited estates under customary law, the applicability of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1962, the admissibility of pedigree and relationship evidence under the Evidence Act 1872, and issues of limitation and adverse possession. The Peshawar High Court held that female heirs under custom only held limited life estates which terminated upon the enactment of the 1962 Act, causing the estate to revert and open for succession under Muslim Personal Law to the shari heirs of the last full owner. The Court affirmed that possession referable to a lawful title such as a customary life estate does not become adverse, and upheld the trial court's findings regarding the shares of the parties, dismissing all three appeals.

  Questions settled

  • Whether female heirs holding property under customary law as limited owners acquire absolute ownership or merely a life estate?
  • Does limitation for a suit for possession start running against reversioners during the subsistence of a female limited life estate?
  • Are statements regarding family relationship made by deceased persons admissible as exceptions to the hearsay rule under the Evidence Act?
  • What is the effect of the enactment of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1962 on female limited estates held under custom?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Roz Gujar vs Janatul Haq and 7 others1990 MLD 80 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-30Read full judgment →
• H. Graribullah vs Mst. Mumtaz Begum And Other1990 CLC 1609 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-04-21
  admission by defendantjudgment on admissioncivil revisionwithdrawal of suitoccupancy tenantfresh suit permissionjurisdictional error
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from a suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration or alternative possession based on gift, inam, and adverse possession. Defendants Nos. 1 to 6, holding a one-half share, admitted the plaintiff's claim via a written statement and statement on oath by their special attorney. However, the trial court dismissed the suit in its entirety, and the appellate court affirmed the dismissal while omitting to consider the plaintiff's application to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh one based on occupancy tenancy rights under the N.-W.F.P. Tenancy Act 1950. The core legal questions were whether the court was bound to pass a judgment on the admissions made by certain defendants, and whether failure to consider an application for withdrawal of a suit constituted a jurisdictional error justifying revisional interference. The High Court held that under Order VIII Rule 5, Order XII Rule 6, and Order XV Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, courts must pronounce judgment against admitting defendants. The High Court set aside the lower decisions, decreed the suit regarding the half-share of the admitting defendants, and permitted the withdrawal of the suit regarding the remaining half-share with leave to file a fresh suit.

  Questions settled

  • Is a trial court bound to pass a judgment against defendants who unequivocally confess and admit the plaintiff's claim in their written statement?
  • Does the failure of an appellate court to consider a party's application to withdraw a suit with liberty to file a fresh one constitute a jurisdictional error under Section 115 CPC?
  • Can an alternative plea of ownership based on statutory conversion of occupancy rights under the N.-W.F.P. Tenancy Act 1950 be raised by a party previously claiming title via gift?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Dost vs Usman Ali Khan And 9 Other1990 CLC 1636 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-04-22Read full judgment →
• Gul Badshah vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 2031 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-06-17Read full judgment →
• Government of N.W.F.P. through Deputy Commissioner, Bannu and 31990 PLD Peshawar 125 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-11-14Read full judgment →
• Government of N.W.F.P. Through Deputy Commissioner, Bannu And 21990 CLC 1898 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-03-24
  encroachmentadverse possessionlocal commissioner reportdemarcation of landownership of treescivil revisionprescriptive title
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from a suit for possession filed by the respondent against the Government of N.W.F.P., alleging encroachment upon his land. The core legal questions were whether the defendants had encroached upon the plaintiff's land, as determined by a court-appointed Local Commissioner, and whether the defendants had acquired title through adverse possession. The trial court, relying on the Local Commissioner's demarcation report—which was verified by the defendants' own nominee—decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff. The District Judge upheld this decision on appeal. The High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the encroachment were based on sound evidence and lacked jurisdictional error. Furthermore, the Court held that possession held under a mistaken belief of ownership does not constitute adverse possession, as it lacks the requisite 'hostile' intent. Additionally, the Court affirmed that trees growing on land are presumed to belong to the landowner, and a trespasser cannot claim ownership of such growth without positive proof of independent cultivation.

  Questions settled

  • Does possession held under a mistaken belief of ownership satisfy the requirement of 'hostile' possession for a claim of adverse possession?
  • Is a landowner legally entitled to trees growing on their land in the absence of proof that a trespasser planted and maintained them?
  • Can a court rely on a Local Commissioner's demarcation report if it was conducted in the presence of the parties and their nominees?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of N.W.F.P. And Others vs Mohibullah1990 CLC 1703 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-09Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabbir and anothers vs Additional Commissioner, D.I. Khan1990 MLD 2294 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-05Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rahullah Khan vs Amir Sher Bahadar Khan And 142 Other1990 CLC 1883 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-09Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rabbani vs Abdul Qayum and 2 others1990 MLD 1871 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-07Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Jaafar vs Mst.Zaibun Nisa and 5 others1990 PLD Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-07-01Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Haider vs Muhammad Younis1990 CLC 1 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-09-16Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Akbar Khan and Other vs Hajisher Jan and OtherK.L.R. 1990 Revenue Cases 136 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-08Read full judgment →
• Faqir Muhammad vs Akhtar Ali And Other1990 CLC 22 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-10Read full judgment →